Curious...when did "7" become the slab "cutoff"?

[ThoseBackPages]

Ive read it before, and seen it on auctions.

Just wondering when "PSA 7" became the "low point" cutoff for so many collectors?

I'm new to the vintage slab world and always willing to learn.

Thanks for the read,
Eric

[ChiefBenderForever]

I don't know Eric but pretty happy that it is because I keep getting sick 3.4,5,and 6 cards that look just as nice or many times much nicer for a fraction of the price. It could be the registry thing or maybe people just like the number 7 or higher. All I care about is eye appeal, a nice bright card with a pack fresh crisp image ! I have seen so many 7 and 8s that look like dog s*&^, faded, print lines, horrible centering and just don't get it but hey, thats more nice low grades for us to get !!

[hcv123]

My opinion is the 7 level for most (some exceptions- 52 topps topping the list) post war collectors seems to be the highest more "affordable" grade. I am sure given the option anyone would want the best condition possible. So possible translates into realistically afordable.

Regarding pre war and certain test and food issues I would have to say your "7" theory is out the window.

That said I agree strongly with Johhny that the one thing consistent with graded cards is their inconsistency. It is amazing to me HOW inconsistent some of the grading is. So you could certainly find lower graded cards with more incredible eye appeal than higher ones. One example - I own a 1968 3d Clemente - It is near perfect EXCEPT for a tiny pin hole (It is hard to see from the front and more easily given away on the back.) Take the pinhole away and I'd say it's an easy 7-8. PSA policy - any pinhole or staple hole and the card is a PSA 1. So I have a PSA 1 that 98% looks like a 7-8 that I bought for a fraction of the price of a 7-8. Just my 2 cents.

[JasonL]

Personally, I find that PSA 7 for post-war collecting is where I find the most consistently appealing cards at affordable pricing (relative to what happens at the PSA 8 through 10 levels).

I find the PSA 6-and-under population, in general, to have too much variability in eye appeal (and slightly less grading consistency if I had to generalize).

I find the eye appeal and card quality found in PSA 8 thru 10 to be consistently high, although (usually) not materially different enough from a PSA 7 for me to warrant the drastically increased prices.

After all, when I started collecting, there was NM and then Mint. So I find the PSA 8 to be a bit of a bastard child of the 9 and the PSA 10 to be, well, just marketing. Hence, I like 7s and 9s. Which is really weird, because my favorite number and my uniform number has always been....8

[4815162342]

Originally Posted by hcv123

My opinion is the 7 level for most (some exceptions- 52 topps topping the list) post war collectors seems to be the highest more "affordable" grade. I am sure given the option anyone would want the best condition possible. So possible translates into realistically afordable.

Regarding pre war and certain test and food issues I would have to say your "7" theory is out the window.

That said I agree strongly with Johhny that the one thing consistent with graded cards is their inconsistency. It is amazing to me HOW inconsistent some of the grading is. So you could certainly find lower graded cards with more incredible eye appeal than higher ones. One example - I own a 1968 3d Clemente - It is near perfect EXCEPT for a tiny pin hole (It is hard to see from the front and more easily given away on the back.) Take the pinhole away and I'd say it's an easy 7-8. PSA policy - any pinhole or staple hole and the card is a PSA 1. So I have a PSA 1 that 98% looks like a 7-8 that I bought for a fraction of the price of a 7-8. Just my 2 cents.

Post a pic?

[Leon]

I understand a bit about post war and agree that the NMT grades are a sweet spot...once you go to an 8 the difference in appeal isn't that great and the price goes up by mulitples most times.

For pre-war I have always said the best bang for your buck is a 6....as from there to a 7 goes up exponentially in price and there isn't a big difference in eye appeal. When I was doing the HOF rookie collecting, 7 was the number I went for, for post war.....

[wilkcards]

I'm collecting 52 topps in PSA 7+ and personally it's because 6s usually looks like crap to me. Sometimes there are nice looking psa 6 cards, but they're usually further off-center than I like. Also, if I decide to sell them there is room for profit or to at least get my money back. Too much goes to fees on a $20 card.
Also, I feel it would be too easy to get the set in PSA 6.

PSA 7, or better baby!

[fkw]

At arms length a 7 will look just like a 9, but will cost over 75% less.

What would the smart collector collect??




IMO collectors who ONLY want 8 and above are in it for the status of having the best card/set, etc. There are many a 7 that look just as good as any 8 or 9 for a fraction of the cost.

[sportsamerica]

I also think there needs to be talks about investment or collectible.

I also like to purchase 7's, as I find them more affordable and nicer (there are some ugly 7's though). I try to use this as a gauge:

1950's - 7's
1960's - 8's
1970's current 9's

That is what I see as "best buys" for the money...

[JasonL]

mine targets are one grade below yours
For my budget, I target:
1950s = PSA 6
1960s = PSA 7
1970s = PSA 8
1980s+ - PSA 9

[ChiefBenderForever]

For centering I have noticed many 5's are much nicer than a 6 or 7 with only flaw soft corners. Or a nrmt perfect card that is a 5 because of a small corner ding. My only advice is don't get so caught up in the grade you pass up a nice 5 or 6 for way less than a 7 or 8 when they really have no difference.

[JasonL]

I have a 1955 Killebrew RC PSA5 that (to me) looks like a 7+
Now, there is a centering issue, which I acknowledge, but I don't consider it severe-in part because the 1955 card design doesn't call attention to it like a 1961 or 1967 would, but other than that...can't find anything wrong with the card...love it.

[JasonL]

this one is terribly relevant...
I hit the BIN last weekend on a 5-card lot of PSA 7 Ernie Banks cards (1967 through 1971) for $150...I can be happy with $30 each and knocking off a chunk at one time.

Now if I can find someone who will do the same thing for me on Eddie Mathews, we will be all set!!!

[ThoseBackPages]

Originally Posted by JasonL

this one is terribly relevant...
I hit the BIN last weekend on a 5-card lot of PSA 7 Ernie Banks cards (1967 through 1971) for $150...I can be happy with $30 each and knocking off a chunk at one time.

Now if I can find someone who will do the same thing for me on Eddie Mathews, we will be all set!!!

Thats a great pickup! i saw that lot, but i had 3 of the 5 already, so i passed on it.

Amen on Mathews, im down to just three topps (one i'll never get lol!) and two bowmans to finish his base run

[JasonL]

yeah, you know, I already have two of those 5 (1967 raw and 1969 PSA 8), but I bought them anyway...couldn't resist the package deal.

The Mathews collection sounds great - do you collect graded or raw? targeting fairly high grade? Which one did you find the toughest to get a reasonable price on -of the ones you own?

[ThoseBackPages]

Originally Posted by JasonL

yeah, you know, I already have two of those 5 (1967 raw and 1969 PSA 8), but I bought them anyway...couldn't resist the package deal.

The Mathews collection sounds great - do you collect graded or raw? targeting fairly high grade? Which one did you find the toughest to get a reasonable price on -of the ones you own?

I only collect graded, with this "loosely" as my general rule...

on anything pre-1972 the lower the grade, the better.
on 72 to 79, looking for 7's, 8's and possibly 9's
on 80 to 09, looking for 9's and possibly 10's


For Mathews, i go for 5/6 maybe 7's

Of the ones i own, they were all fairly reasonable. Havnt tracked down an affordable '53 bowman yet. its the '52 that wont be reasonable!!! LOL

[JasonL]

Eric,
that sounds like a good way to go about it.
Most of my Mathews cards are raw, and I have been thinking about submitting them, but I suspect they are mostly 5s and 6s

Ideally, I would like to assemble a graded collection with the 1960s cards in PSA 7 and the 1950s in PSA 6 if I can't swing the 7s...

Just got the Banks lot yesterday...they look fantastic. Honestly, on a couple of them, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between those and a PSA 9.

Good luck with your Mathews collection...post scans when you add a new one.

[Robextend]

I think everyone makes some good points. Many post-war sets have very little price difference between 7's and 9's. I am working on an SGC graded 1970 Topps football set. I find that for the majority of the cards (mainly commons) there is little price difference between a 7 or 9, so I might as well go for the 9 and lead the way on the registry.

[GoldenAge50s]

Funny you guys are talking about Mathews--I just got 2 back from SGC. The '54 Bowman is from my complete set and the '53 is from my #2 set. I sent a few of each in just to see how they would grade.

I also have a '53 Color just back, but I haven't looked at those yet!

[JasonL]

Thanks for sharing...

You must have some extremely nice sets of these issues.

I collect Mathews primarily because he was my Father's favorite player while growing up outside of Milwaukee. Do you have any player collections as well?

[GoldenAge50s]

Jason---

Never have been a player collector. The heart of my collection are the early'50s Topps & Bowman, and they are all my originals from my boyhood of buying packs. Several complete sets & dupes, altho I have sold most of the dupes over the last 8 yrs on EBay.

[bobafett72]

there are plenty of affordable 6's that looks just as good and you can find 5's that look stunning sometimes.

i much prefer raw cards, but i love finding a stunner in a low grade slab on the cheap

[JasonL]

I recently picked up a couple of 1960s star cards in PSA 5 holders that to me could pass for 7s,...definitely goes both ways, and different aspects appeal to different folks...gotta focus on the card and not the flip.

[ThoseBackPages]

This came in the mail today, leaving me two cards short of his Topps Run ('57 and '52)